Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1245/2012

Prabhjit Singh S/o Harjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Sahara India Parivar - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.Sandhu

07 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1245 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 04.12.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 07.06.2017.

 

Prabhjit Singh, aged about 26 years, son of Late Shri Harjit Singh, resident of House No. B-9/1317, Vishnu Nagar, Jagadhri-Workshop, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

           

                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Sahara India Parivar, Branch Office: 1^st Floor, Near Kamani Chowk,Yamuna Nagar.

 

2. The Divisional Officer, Sahara India Parivar, Gohana Road, Panipat.

 

3. Command Office, Sahara India, Parivar, S-1 Bhawan, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow.

 

                                                                                                  …Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

Present:           Sh. HS Sandhu, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                        Sh. Rajbir  Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondents

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1.                       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that father of the complainant namely Harjit Singh had obtained three bonds of Sahara India Parivar bearing No.23992001118, 23992001119 and 23992001120 of Rs.50,000/- each in October, 2007. According to the terms and conditions of the said bonds death risk claim was covered. Unfortunately, the father of the complainant Shri Harjit Singh died due to heart attack, in the intervening night of 24-25.12.2008. After that, complainant according to the condition of bonds applied for claim in respect of death of his father Harjit Singh and submitted all the relevant documents in April, 2009. The OPs released maturity amount of Rs.58,128/-  for each bond to the complainant on 16.04.2009. However, the OPs have not released the death benefits of deceased of Shri Harjit Singh, upon which complainant contacted the OPs through telephonic call on 11.06.2010 but the OPs have not given any response except false assurance. Thereafter, after waiting for a quite long time, the complainant sent e-mail to the OP No.3 and also sent a letter to the OP No.2 at Panipat Office on 25.05.2012 and further mailed e-mail on 17.06.2012 and 19.06.2012 to the OP No.3 and at Lucknow office but nothing was done in this regard. The complainant on 11.10.202 received a telephonic call and he was directed to approach Branch Office at Yamuna Nagar. Accordingly, complainant visited the Branch Office at Yamuna Nagar but even then nothing was done. The OPs have not released the death benefits of his father till now since April 2009 and ultimately a legal notice dated 20.10.2012 was served with the requested to release the death benefits of Shri Harjit Singh, father of the complainant, along with interest. Lastly prayed for directing the Ops to release the death benefit and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement jointly, taking some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is highly barred by time as it has been filed beyond limitation period of two (2) year as provided under Section 24A of the CP Act. The present complaint has been filed claiming death benefits claim on the investment made by Shri Harjit Singh who died on 25.12.2008, So the cause of action (if any)  for the present complaint and relevant therein would have arisen on the death of deceased Advance Booking Holder i.e. on 25.12.2008 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 22.11.2012. If any cause of action to have arisen, that should be on 15.04.2009 then too, the present complaint filed on 22.11.2012 is beyond limitation period. The deceased Harjit Singh has opened three accounts vide account No.23992001118, 23992001119 and 23992001120 in Sahara Multi plus Scheme on 31.08.2007 at Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar. Shri Harjit Singh died on 25.12.2008 and after that his nominee/complainant apply and received deposited amount with accrued interest in respect of all three accounts by signing the payment receipt/voucher No.239909801556, 239909801557, 239909801558 respectively on 15.04.2009 as full and final satisfaction without any protest thus an amount of Rs.1,74,384/- (advanced amount plus interest accrued till date minus statutory deduction) was paid to the complainant. Thus, no payment is due on the part of the opposite party. As such there arose no cause of action in favour of complainant to file the present complaint; the present complaint is not maintainable and bad in law for non joinder of the necessary parties Sahara Star plus scheme is floated by Sahara India Commercial Corporation limited and as such has separate artificial legal entity from Sahara India. The complainant has wrongly impleaded Sahara India as Opposite Parties, At the time of subscribing the account, the terms and conditions of the scheme were read over and explained to the deceased account holder and after fully understanding the same, he entered into the arbitration agreement by signing the account opening forms; As per clause 17 of Sahara Multi Plus  Scheme claiming the subject matter of the present complaint relates to death help facility which is an interest free loan which is provided to the nominee of the deceased account holder after fulfilling the certain conditions of Sahara Multiple Plus Scheme. It is well settled law that loan and prizes shall not come within ambit of Consumer Protection Act and on merit it has been mentioned that Shri Harjit Singh died on 25.10.2008 due to heart attack but even on demand, the complainant did not provide any documents relating to patient history of Shri Harjit Singh and documents of treatment received by him in order to discharge his contractual obligations and to prove the fact that prior to his death account holder was not suffering with any chronic or fatal disease. In the absence of any genuine and authentic documents regarding age of deceased bond holder and his medical treatment, no accidental benefit such as Death Help Loan can be advance to the complainant. It has been further mentioned that agreement between the parties is an agreement based on Uberrima Fide (contract of utmost good faith) and since death help facility is collateral benefit appended to main agreement depending on satisfaction of the company. The burden lies on nominee to satisfy the terms and conditions laid down in the scheme. The clause 17 of Sahara Multiple Plus Scheme is reproduced here as under: -

 

Death Help:

1. Age of deceased Bond Holder was between 15 and 65 years at the time of death.
2. Death of bond holder should occur after 12 months (365 days) from date of purchasing the bond and before the completion of tenure of bond.
3. The death of Bond Holder did not occur due to suicide or death punishment by the Court of law.
4. The death of the Bond Holder did not occur due to communal violence or war.
5. The deceased applicant was not suffering from any chronic/fatal disease within the period of 3 years prior to the time of opening of account. The nominee(s) shall produce authentic, convincing documentary proof in this regard, along with birth certificate and proof of death of the applicant to the satisfaction of the company.

AMOUNT OF DEATH HELP:

                        “The company shall pay to the nominee(s) of the deceased applicant the applicable credit value of that stage after appropriating loss of interest, if any. In addition to above, if the death of the applicant occurs after 12 months of advance booking but before 18 months an amount equivalent to 3% of advance amount would be payable every month for 18 months to the nominee(s) of deceased applicant. if the death of the applicant occurs after 18 months of advance booking but before 24 months an amount equivalent to 3% of advance amount would be payable every month for 24 months of the nominee (s) of deceased applicant. If the death of the applicant occurs after 24 months of advance booking but before 36 months, after 36 months but before completion of the tenure then an amount equivalent to 3% of advance amount would be payable every month for 36 and 48 months, respectively to the nominee(s) deceased applicant.

                        The deceased nominee(s) can avail the facility of death help by giving personal guarantee only. A period of 16 years would be given to nominee(s) for the repayment of death help amount. No interest would be charged the on this amount and the start of repayment would not be necessary within 5 years from the date of receiving death help.

                        Note:- In case of more than 5 applications by an applicant. Death help would be given on maximum 5 applications of highest advance booking amount.

                        In the present complaint, the complainant did not provide any document relating to heart attack or prior treatment /patient history of Shri Harjit Singh due to the risk in order to extort illegally money from the opposite party and had suppressed patient history of the deceased account holder. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX, copy of legal notice as Annexure C-1, acknowledgement card as Annexure C-2, postal receipts as Annexure C-3 to C-5, photocopy of passbook as Annexure C-6, photocopy of request letter dated 11.06.2010 as Annexure C-7 photocopy of unsigned letter as Annexure C-8, photocopy of receipt as Annexure C-9, copy of e mail as Annexure C-10, photocopy of certificate issued by Medical Superintendent, Jagadhri, workshop as Annexure C-11, photocopy of death certificate as Annexure C-12 and closed the evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs  tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ajay Kumar Singh as Annexure R-A, photocopy of proposal Form as Annexure R-1 to R-3, photocopy of receipts of premium as Annexure R-4 to R-6, photocopy of specimen  Form of Insurance policy as Annexure R-7, photocopy of treatment record of Christian Hospital as Annexure R-8, photocopy of terms and condition as Annexure R-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that deceased Shri Harjit Singh had obtained three bonds of Sahara India Bond Parivar bearing No.23992001118, 23992001119 and 23992001120 of Rs.50,000/- each in October, 2007 which is duly evident from the photocopy of receipts (Annexure R-4 to R-6). It is also not disputed that Shri Harjit Singh died due to heart attack 24 in the intervening night of 25.12.2008 which is duly evident from the death certificate of Annexure C-12. Further, it is also not disputed that complainant applied for claim in respect of death of his father Harjit Singh in the month of April, 2009 and the OPs Company released the maturity amount of Rs.58,128/-  for each bond i.e. total amount of Rs.1,74,384/- on 15^th April, 2009.

8.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that OPs Company has not released the death benefits of the deceased Harjit Singh despite so many requests and even despite service of legal notice dated 19.10.2012 which constitute the deficiency in service in question and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that a false manipulated complaint has been filed just to extract the money from the OPs Company. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the Specimen Form as Annexure R-7 which is reproduced in the written statement under Para 22 of the written statement as well as Para 13 of the affidavit (Annexure R-A) and argued that as per sub para under the head of the “Amount Of Death Help”. It has been specifically mentioned that the deceased nominee(s) can avail the facility of death help by giving personal guarantee only. A period of 16 years would be given to the nominee(s) for the repayment of death help amount. No interest would be charged on the amount and the start of repayment would not be necessary within 5 years from the date of receiving the death help.

                        Meaning thereby that, there was only death help loan as per scheme/terms and conditions of the bonds and not any other benefits of any claim. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that as per terms and conditions of the bond, the maturity amount of Rs.58128/- for each bonds i.e. Rs.1,74,384/- on account of advance amount plus interest accrued till date had already been paid to the nominee of the deceased on 15.04.2009. Learned counsel for the OPs argued that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the deceased Harjit Singh died on 25.12.2008 and the maturity amount was paid being full and final settlement on 15.04.2009 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 04.12.2012 i.e. after a period of 2 years as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the ops. The complainant has totally failed to convince this forum that he is entitled to get any further amount from the OPs Company. The complainant did not bother to place on file any treatment record of any hospital due to the reasons best known to him despite that the OPs Company has taken special plea in his written statement that as per terms and condition mentioned under clause 17 of the bond/Sahara Multi Plus Scheme, complainant was asked to submit the entire medical record relating to the patient history of Shri Harjit Singh in order to discharge his contractual obligations and to prove the fact that prior to his death, account holder was not suffering with any chronic and fatal disease and in the absence of any genuine and authentic  documents regarding age of deceased, bonds holder’s and his medical treatment, no additional benefit  such as Death Help Loan  can be advanced to the complainant. Further, from the perusal of scheme mentioned in the specimen form (Annexure R-7) which is reproduced in written statement as well as affidavit under para 22 and para 13 respectively. It is clear that there was only Death Help Loan subject to completion of the formalities. But, as the complainant has failed to submit or fulfill the required documents hence there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 07.06.2017.           

                                                                                  

                                                                                     (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT, DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                 (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                                 MEMBER